Damn Interesting

The Confederacy’s Special Agent

In late 1863, the ongoing War Between the States was not going well for either the Union or the Confederacy. Two years of armed hostility had led to a stalemate, with mounting casualties on both sides. Protests were widespread, some of which even turned into riots. In order to quell opposition and further the war effort, President Lincoln had suspended certain civil liberties. Congress was bitterly divided along party lines, with a significant faction calling for a peaceful settlement. The partisanship had spread to the press and state governments, each side viciously attacking the other. The governor of Indiana went so far as to dissolve the state legislature and run the state as a military dictatorship. The upcoming Presidential election was looking to be a real corker, with the prospects for Lincoln’s re-election looking very dim.

Seeing an opportunity to turn the tide in their favor, Confederate leaders recruited sympathizers and infiltrators to engage upon a campaign of guerrilla warfare. Millions of dollars were set aside to finance the plan, with bonuses to be given to saboteurs in proportion to the damage they wrought. A good portion of those funds was specifically designated for cross-border operations from Canada, where a number of Confederate officers and prominent sympathizers had fled. At the very least, they hoped to cause an uprising of sufficient proportions that some Union troops would have to be redeployed away from the Confederate front. This was the start of what would become known as the Northwest Conspiracy.

These operations were placed under the command of Captain Thomas Henry Hines, a Kentuckian who had contacts within the pro-South underground networks along the Ohio River. Hines’s mission, which he chose to accept, was to go to Toronto, contact those officers and agents, and carry out “any hostile operation”, provided he did not violate Canadian neutrality. Hines and other Confederate leaders felt that by raising insurrections in those states, they could gain enough influence there to turn them against the Union and bring about a Confederate victory.

Although he was only in his twenties, Hines certainly had experience in dangerous undercover operations. Under the command of Brig. Gen. John Hunt Morgan, Hines had participated in raids by leading a unit of Confederate soldiers disguised as Union troops who were looking for deserters. When discovered, he fled by swimming across the Ohio River under a hail of gunfire. He was reunited with General Morgan a week later, and though the pair were soon captured by Union soldiers, Hines somehow managed to break them both out of the Ohio Penitentiary. Running into Union troops in Tennessee, he also provided a distraction for Morgan that allowed the general to escape while he himself was captured. That didn’t stop the slippery Hines; he regaled his captors with amusing anecdotes until he had the chance to subdue his guard. He then made good his own getaway.

President Lincoln and General McClellan, 1862

Capt. Hines hoped to take advantage of a “fifth column” of sympathizers, already in place. Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan had been settled in large part by people from the southern states, many of whom were “Copperheads” with Confederate sympathies. While they may not have been too keen on slavery, they still felt that blacks were inferior to whites, and didn’t care for the arrogance of the New England abolitionists. When war began to seem inevitable, “peace societies” started to form. With names like Knights of the Columbian Star and Sons of Liberty, they grew in popularity. Members underwent rituals and swore oaths, often oblivious to the true nature of the leaders’ subversive and dangerous plans. The Knights of the Golden Circle was one of the largest and most active. In 1861, they were openly recruiting for the Confederate Army in Illinois, and they engaged in gun-running and guerrilla raids in Iowa. By 1862, they were estimated to have as many as 80,000 members.

In the summer of 1864, the conspirators had men and materiel in position and were ready to strike. The armies of the North and South were both stalled in the field, and the Democratic presidential candidate Gen. George McClellan was highly favored to win the election that fall on a peace platform. Hines and his cohorts concocted a grand scheme: They would build a skilled army by attacking Union prisoner-of-war camps and freeing the detained Confederate troops. These tens of thousands of experienced soldiers could then arm themselves by raiding nearby armories. With simultaneous strikes across the northwest, a general uprising was sure to follow.

Their first planned action was to attack Camp Douglas, a poorly-guarded prisoner-of-war camp in Chicago. For maximum psychological effect, the raid was scheduled to coincide with the Democratic National Convention in late August, 1864. Under normal circumstances, it would not have been difficult to add the thousands of soldiers to the Confederate cause, however the city’s defenses were reinforced for the convention. With a victory by McClellan in the presidential election seemingly guaranteed, most of Hines’ potential recruits didn’t want to risk life or limb, and he was unable to secure enough volunteers. Hines could talk his way out of trouble, but he couldn’t talk others into it.

All was not lost; the conspirators also planned a nearly identical and simultaneous assault in Indianapolis. The Union received word of the plot from Felix Stidger, a Union counterspy who had once held the office of Grand Secretary of the Sons of Liberty. Union Col. Henry Carrington arranged for a dramatic midnight sweep, arresting five leading conspirators. When Indiana judges handed down death sentences for two of the prisoners, there were riotous rumblings among the citizenry. Confederate supporters answered a call to arms, and began to conduct military drills. Col. Carrington, Governor Morton, and other Indiana officials wrote to Washington DC warning that the state was on the brink of chaos. At the eleventh hour, President Lincoln intervened and commuted their sentences to life imprisonment.

Henry B. Carrington

A few weeks later, the Conspiracy was dealt a severe blow when Union forces penetrated Confederate lines in Georgia and seized Atlanta. With a Union victory and Lincoln’s re-election now seemingly inevitable, time and money were both running short. The Conspirators were forced to turn to drastic actions.

On September 19, 1864, John Yates Beall led a group of plotters onto the Lake Erie steamer Philo Parsons in Detroit as ordinary passengers. Beall persuaded the captain to make an unscheduled stop at a town in Canada, where more of his conspirators boarded, smuggling aboard weapons and other equipment. The raiders’ target was the USS Michigan, the linchpin of the Union’s defense of Lake Erie, and the only serious military obstacle between the conspirators and the POW camp on Johnson’s Island. If the conspirators could take the Michigan, it would be a simple matter to liberate the prisoners, raid the armory, and use the resulting army to beleaguer Union forces in Ohio. As the Philo Parsons neared Johnson’s Island, Beall put a gun to the helmsman’s head, and ordered that everyone but his own men be put ashore. Beall then steamed his prize to a point off Johnson’s Island to await a signal from the Michigan, where a fellow plotter had befriended the captain. Unbeknownst to Beall, however, the agent aboard the Michigan had been discovered and arrested, and had spilt every bean. After a prolonged wait with no signal from the Michigan, Beall was forced to abandon the plan amidst murmurs of mutiny. He set course for Canada, landed everyone ashore, and then burned the Philo Parsons.

In October the conspirators tried again. About 20 of Hines’ agents sneaked over the Canadian border into St Albans, Vermont, intent upon plundering and burning the village in “retribution” for Union wrongdoings. On October 19, they staged a simultaneous robbery of the town’s three banks. They jayhawked over $200,000 before fleeing back to Canada, but a woodshed was the only casualty in their effort to torch the city . Canadian authorities were able to arrest most of the raiders, but the Canadian court ruled that they were “legitimate military belligerents” and ordered their release without extraditing them to the Union. The loot they had on them when they were captured was returned to St. Albans.

One opportunity remained to inspire an anti-Union uprising in the northern states. Even as the Confederacy was collapsing, Hines rallied his forces one last time to take Camp Douglas in Chicago. It was to be a surprise attack under the cover of darkness, with Conspiracy agents tasked to cut the telegraph wires and burn the railroad depots. The liberated prisoners of war would then take possession of the city, seize the banks, and “commence a campaign for the release of other prisoners of war in the States of Illinois and Indiana, thus organizing an army to effect and give success to the general uprising so long contemplated by the Sons of Liberty.” The assault was scheduled for Election Day, November 8, 1864.

Camp Douglas

In the days leading up to the attack, the plotters assembled men and munitions, compiling a sizable cache of resources. Hines’ well-armed militia of over 100 “bushwhackers, guerrillas, and rebel soldiers” stood a very good chance of overwhelming the defenses of Camp Douglas, and the release of the 10,000 or so Confederate prisoners would be a force to be reckoned with. On the night before the raid, however, Hines and his co-conspirators were paid an unexpected visit by the commander of Camp Douglas: Col. Benjamin J. Sweet. He was accompanied by a posse of Union Army agents. Having been tipped off by suspicious activities and rumors, Sweet foiled the plot just before it could spring into action. He seized the cache of weapons and used it to reinforce the Chicago’s military guard, thereby ensuring the city’s safety. The raid’s leaders and several Sons of Liberty officers were arrested, though Hines— the mastermind of the conspiracy— was nowhere to be found. He turned up outside of Chicago sometime later, allegedly having evaded capture by hiding inside a mattress.

A few more desultory attempts were made. An attempt to put New York City to the torch started some twenty fires, but they were quickly controlled and there was no resulting panic or uprising. John Beall tried derailing Union trains near Buffalo, NY. All three of his attempts failed. The Conspiracy’s last gasp was thwarted by an alert U.S. Consul in Bermuda, where doctors were treating an outbreak of yellow fever. The official discovered that a certain doctor from Kentucky had been secretly shipping the victims’ blankets and clothing to conspirators in Canada. The scheme was to ship the contaminated goods back into the northern U.S. in the hopes of starting an epidemic. Even if that plan had been carried out, the intended victims had nothing to fear: yellow fever is spread through mosquito bites, not contaminated clothing.

By April 1865, the War Between the States was over. President Johnson continued Lincoln’s policies of reconciliation, and in the following month, offered a wide-ranging amnesty to all but high-ranking officers of the Confederate forces. By simply swearing an oath of allegiance to the United States, they would be forgiven of their rebellious activities. Hines, who was biding his time in Canada by studying law, accepted the offer. He returned to his native Kentucky, where he soon opened a law practice in Bowling Green. He ended his career by serving two terms as the Chief Justice of the Kentucky Court of Appeals. He died in January of 1898.

General Robert E. Lee surrenders to General Ulysses S. Grant

Because it was technically unsuccessful, the story of Captain Hines and the Northwest Conspiracy is often overlooked in discussions of the American Civil War. Most modern historians blame the organization’s failure on Hines’ overestimation of the Sons of Liberty and their comrades-in-arms; it turned out that these rabble-rousers were all talk, with very little inclination for significant action. Hines also consistently underestimated his enemy’s intelligence-gathering abilities, which allowed the Union Army to hamper many of his schemes before he could carry them out. Nevertheless, Hines and his co-conspirators came very close to influencing the course of the war on several occasions, and might have done so were it not for the sharp eyes and good fortune of a few men of the Union Army.

Sixth! damn good read. Most informative. Excellent background. Most interesting devices. OF COURSE I READ IT!!!!

kgy121

Posted 08 March 2008 at 02:35 am

Fifth said: “Such children *rolls eyes*”

Heh. You’re one to talk.

Anyway, it’s a shame that none of the history books (or at least the ones that are at my school) have even a refrence to one of the first Special Agents in history. Then again, as the entire Special Forces is based on secrecy, it is rather fitting.

Oasx

Posted 08 March 2008 at 02:42 am

How about doing something about this childish behavior? It is kinda sad that the comments to these interesting articles makes the site look like AICN.

Dtex

Posted 08 March 2008 at 03:02 am

Wow! Even back then, the Republicans were POS! Some things never change…….

Yossarian

Posted 08 March 2008 at 04:32 am

Dtex said: “Wow! Even back then, the Republicans were POS! Some things never change…….”

Actually, if one had to assign parties, Hines would’ve been a Democrat then, since he was fighting for the Confederates. The Democrats were the ones advocating the continuation of slavery, the Republicans were the ones abolishing it instead.

GeorgeAR

Posted 08 March 2008 at 06:32 am

Damned Interesting. Cloak and dagger in the Civl War. Lincoln dropping Civil Liberties (I wonder if that would make a Damned Interesing aricle itself?). What would have happened if the North didn’t have the counter inteligence to stop them? Did the North have similar strategies?

Anonymousx2

Posted 08 March 2008 at 06:37 am

Yossarian:

I like your Hellerian name, by the way.

Great post! Your words brought to mind the following:

A few important items that I have learned to keep in mind about The Civil War/The War between the States/The War of Northern Aggression:
1. Slavery was a symptom of the causes for the War; it was not the cause itself for the War. Not all historians agree on this point, though. Some maintain that slavery was the primary impetus.
2. Only part of the War was based on economics (and, in that sense, slavery could be viewed as one of the causes). Two others:
A. Cultural: the old, aristocratic model versus the modern, mechanized model
B. Philosophical: The South followed the ideals of Thomas Jefferson and the North adhered to the ideals of Hamilton.

In a very real sense, Reagan’s election in 1980 (his “New Federalism”) can be traced back to Jefferson’s desire for a limited central government. I am not sure if one can say that Obama and Clinton represent a desire for an even more powerful federal government, but it seems that way at present.

The War between Jefferson and Hamilton is not over yet, and I don’t think that it ever will be. After all, the ideals of both Jefferson and Hamilton arose from thousands of years of those fighting for centralized power and those fighting against it.

Considering our current minor difficulties with the economy, the various wars on terrorism, illegal immigrants, increasing taxes, and on and on, one has to wonder what will be the next result of the Neverending War.

Anonymousx2

Posted 08 March 2008 at 06:46 am

GeorgeAR:

For an alternative view of the War and of Lincoln, read The Lost Cause. Its portrayal of President Davis is especially interesting.

Today, Lincoln is revered, and I have a high opinion of him, too. However, the fact remains that he suspended more Constitutionally-protected rights than the current President has even considered. And that is just the beginning of what he did to save the Union.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address says much about his motivations for continuing the War so that he could preserve the Union. Garry Wills’ Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America examines this topic in depth.

jesse_james

Posted 08 March 2008 at 09:57 am

When it comes to the slavery issue I think it’s interesting to note how no confederate flag ever flew over slave ships. Instead, it was the U.S. flag and most slave ships were escorted by U.S. Naval vessels.

justjim

Posted 08 March 2008 at 09:57 am

What a great read… Very Damned Interesting!
Now if we could only get the “me first” kids to go post their crap elsewhere, this would be a fine blog.

sd9sd

Posted 08 March 2008 at 10:21 am

Fifth said: “Such children *rolls eyes*”

Heh! do you always manage to post as fifth? or did you create a new username just for the purpose? :) Either way, you’re FAST! :)

This site always blows me away with these great stories that I’ve never heard of… maybe this one was left out of my Southern education, due to the fact that they were all failed missions…

:)

supercalafragalistic

Posted 08 March 2008 at 11:09 am

I love how the DI community logs their comment posting metrics above. Very scientific and amusing at the same time. The US today has the same potential for a group of angry people to take matters into their own hands in a similar fashion, but my initial guess is that there isn’t enough of a theme to connect people with the proper motivation to attempt to execute a formal plan. I could be wrong though. Today’s state of current affairs strikes me as causing general grumbles with nothing specific to anger people as much as slavery.

Jaeron

Posted 08 March 2008 at 01:39 pm

At that time, the argument for keeping slaves was the economy. It was stated that if slavery was abolished, the farms and southern businesses that relied on slave labor would be forced to go out of business, or raise prices to levels that Americans couldn’t handle… It was going to cripple the economy.

I find it funny that this can truly be related to the illegal immigration issue. They say that illegals are doing the jobs that Americans wouldn’t do, and for less money. They say that without illegal immigrants doing this labor, the economy would be crippled, and prices would raise to levels that Americans couldn’t handle… It would cripple the economy.

Interesting how we made it through that time, even though we abolished slavery.

rackrussel

Posted 08 March 2008 at 01:57 pm

which he chose to accept,

priceless

Jaeron

Posted 08 March 2008 at 02:09 pm

Well you have to consider the fact that he chose to abolish slavery, but that doesn’t mean he chose to accept the destruction of the economy. He just had the opposite view, just like in todays world, not everyone agrees that making illegal immigrants actually come here legally would cripple the economy. Clearly abolishing slavery was the right thing to do, and the economy didn’t suffer the meltdown. Forcing people to come to this country legally, and punishing those companies that pay lesser, unfair wages under the table, or knowingly pay someone using invalid identification would not cripple the economy.

I wonder if the media would have influenced his decision if he was considering the abolition of slavery today…

What I want to know is, why aren’t we learning from history?

Etrigan

Posted 08 March 2008 at 03:51 pm

Anonymousx2 said: Slavery was a symptom of the causes for the War; it was not the cause itself for the War. Not all historians agree on this point, though. Some maintain that slavery was the primary impetus.

The name for those historians who maintain this is “Correct Historians.” Take a guess how many of the Confederate state constitutions mentioned the looming abolition of slavery as an explicit reason for their secession (a hint — more than half, and more than cited every other reason combined, not counting, “Yankees are mean!”).

Economic reasons? The abolition of slavery meant that the agrarian South, whose profits on their crops were greatly inflated by their not having to pay their workers, would lose the influence they enjoyed.

Political reasons? The only “state’s right” they cared about enough to secede over was the right to let people own other people.

Northern aggression? Who exactly fired on Fort Sumter again?

Did people fight for the Confederacy for reasons besides slavery? Yes. But the fact that people signed up for the Army in the 1990s for the GI Bill benefits doesn’t mean that the War on Terror was caused by a lack of vocational training in America’s secondary schools.

Anonymousx2

Posted 08 March 2008 at 04:18 pm

Etrigan:

Just out of curiosity, have you ever driven down Richmond’s (Virginia) Street of Monuments and read the engraving on the largest, central monument?

Anonymousx2

Posted 08 March 2008 at 04:34 pm

Jaeron :
According to the various histories that I have read, Lincoln’s first and foremost goal was to preserve the Union. To that end, he never referred to those fighting in the South as “Confederates” because to do so would have legitimatized them as a country. Instead, he called “rebels” and nothing else. As far as he was concerned, they had never left the Union because leaving the Union was impossible.

He was also willing to take whatever steps necessary to preserve the Union, besides suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus (just as the current administration has done) and certain civil rights and liberties.

The biggest step was that he did not declare the slaves to be free until 1863, and, even then, that was a political measure. On at least one occasion, he stated that he “would free none of the slaves, some of the slaves, or all of the slaves to preserve the Union.” At one point, he was willing to allow slavery to continue, as long as it would end the War and save the Union. At another, he offered to return every slave and every descendant of a slave to Africa at no cost to them. He also offered financial aid to the South if they would be willing to cease the rebellion and allow the slaves to be shipped to Africa.

For Lincoln, the Union was all that mattered, and he would do everything that he had to do to save it, including either suspending or violating the Constitution. Little wonder, then, why so many persons both North and South understood why Booth cried, “Sic Semper Tyrannis!”, a line that he borrowed from George Mason when he was speaking to the Virginia Convention in 1776.

One final item: According to historical sources, Lincoln did believe that no man could own another, but he also believed that blacks were inferior to whites, especially intellectually. In many, many ways, he was a product of his times.

Jaeron

Posted 08 March 2008 at 04:49 pm

AnonymousX2:

Oh absolutely I agree 100%, and didn’t mean to imply otherwise. His only motivation was to keep the country together. The North and the South had differing opinions on the way things should be, but you have to concede as well that Lincoln did intend on emancipating the slaves, due to the politics of the North. The cecession of the South was primarily because they felt they differed so much from the North, they wanted to be completely independant.

Lincoln had a plan to literally buy every slave for the cost of $400.00 per slave, payable to the slave owner. He was literally going to buy their freedom, to keep the country together, and to save the money of having to go to war. And to save the lives of both sides. This $400.00 could be used to pay the workers they would be forced to hire, over a great period of time, while increasing the price of their goods by a small amount to stretch out the time the $400.00 would cover labor expenses.

You’re correct, the Union was all that mattered. Political pressure from the North forced Lincoln to make the moves he did, that divided the nation into two, the only time in history that this great country saw a difference so great, they felt they needed to be a seperate country.

1c3d0g

Posted 08 March 2008 at 05:12 pm

Anonymousx2 said: “GeorgeAR:
…
Today, Lincoln is revered, and I have a high opinion of him, too. However, the fact remains that he suspended more Constitutionally-protected rights than the current President has even considered. And that is just the beginning of what he did to save the Union.
…

Indeed. But drastic times call for drastic measures, and believe me, that horrible “North vs. South” War *was* drastic. A nation torn in half, bodies strewn across fields as far as the eye could see…all that fighting was unfortunately necessary to abolish slavery. In that regard I’m truly saddened that throughout our existence, we as human beings have to resort to violence to settle major disputes. In armed conflicts, nobody wins, everyone loses, some a lot more than others. My only hope is that one day we will be wise enough to avoid those costly mistakes. When that day comes, *that* will be a day to celebrate…a new beginning, an era of peace and joy.

I’ll leave y’all with a quote: As a wise man once said, those who fail to learn from past mistakes in history are doomed to repeat them.

Anonymousx2

Posted 08 March 2008 at 07:46 pm

“As a wise man once said, those who fail to learn from past mistakes in history are doomed to repeat them.”

I have become a skeptic (which is good and desirable), a pessimist, and – at times – a cynic.

From my limited point of view, it seems that humankind has learned from the past and: 1.) chooses to ignore what it has learned; 2.) finds new ways to make mistakes; 3.) confuses pride with rationality; 4.) thinks that it can do the same thing over and over but that a new result will eventually be had.

A quote from someone not nearly so wise: Just because I’m old, bitter, cynical, that doesn’t mean I’m wrong.

We’ll see; we’ll see.

GeorgeAR

Posted 08 March 2008 at 07:52 pm

Anonymousx2 said: “GeorgeAR:

For an alternative view of the War and of Lincoln, read The Lost Cause. Its portrayal of President Davis is especially interesting.

Today, Lincoln is revered, and I have a high opinion of him, too. However, the fact remains that he suspended more Constitutionally-protected rights than the current President has even considered. And that is just the beginning of what he did to save the Union.

Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address says much about his motivations for continuing the War so that he could preserve the Union. Garry Wills’ Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words that Remade America examines this topic in depth.”

Thanks. I’ll look into it. If we don’t learn from history, we’re bound to repeat it.

Jonny

Posted 08 March 2008 at 10:01 pm

Children you say? Bah! My teachers all refer to me as a “young adult” and given their salary, I trust their opinion. Your all just jealous because you lack the skillz to chance upon a newly posted article and leave one of the first comments.

P.S. In case your wondering, yes, the aforementioned skillz to have the potential to killz.

Jonny

Posted 08 March 2008 at 10:02 pm

*do

SoxSweepAgain

Posted 08 March 2008 at 11:44 pm

Why do people post “First!”? Who really cares? Especially without something to add?

Whatever, it just bothers me, you have to scroll down to get to actual replies.

Fantastic read; I am a Civil War buff, and this was a fleshed-out detail of something I really hadn’t been that aware of.

GeorgeAR: Personally speaking, I believe that societies will always find a reason to have a war because, when we are part of a collective, our basic nature is intensified and enabled.

Coincidentally, as I was preparing to type the first words of this post, The History Channel began its nine a.m. program with these words (paraphrased): Nearly every one of man’s inventions can be traced to one common source: military application.

That reminded me of something that I read about thirty-two years on the bottom of an Old Spice shaving mug that I found in my uncle’s house after he passed away. Evidently, he received the mug as a gift sometime after World War Two and never removed it from its box. When I took it out to look at it, I saw these words: “This mug is made from materials developed during America’s period of greatest advancement: 1941-1945.”

Earlier this morning, I looked at the Post Secret site and saw a postcard that mirrors what I have heard some white people say: “— he is elected President he will let the black people make us into Slaves.” Perhaps a Korean-American or a Mexican-American wrote that, but I will bet that it was a Caucasian-American.

An ancient Chinese curse is “May you live in interesting times.”

Considering humankind’s proclivity for killing, I think that we always have lived and always will live in interesting times.

I only hope that we don’t return to the race riots of the 1960’s, but, given the “ethnic cleansing” and violence that is occurring today in other countries, I suspect that the US will suffer all of that and more, once again.

camilos

Posted 09 March 2008 at 07:56 am

SoxSweepAgain said: “Why do people post “First!”? Who really cares? Especially without something to add? Whatever, it just bothers me, you have to scroll down to get to actual replies.”

It didn’t used to be this way. But as DI became more popular, it attracted a lot of young digg-type users.

Regarding the article, I don’t understand why the Canadian courts released them for being “legitimate military belligerents”. They robbed banks and stole 200K, they were nothing more than criminals.

Also, that picture of Lincoln and General McClellan is incredible. I never knew Lincoln was that tall. He looks like a giant.

camilos

Posted 09 March 2008 at 08:28 am

Jaeron said: I find it funny that this can truly be related to the illegal immigration issue.

I don’t see how an article about a civil war event, an event that happened almost 150 years ago, has anything to do with the current immigration issue.

Let’s stick to the article’s subject and not derail this topic.

Mr Burns

Posted 09 March 2008 at 11:15 am

Anonymousx2 said: “An ancient Chinese curse is “May you live in interesting times.”

… and you’re sure you haven’t read that in the book “Interesting times” by Terry Pratchett?

And another thing…

Hines’s mission, which he chose to accept, was to …

Is this a Mission Impossible reference?

oldmancoyote

Posted 09 March 2008 at 01:02 pm

camilos said: ” I never knew Lincoln was that tall. He looks like a giant.”

Haven’t you ever seen the Lincoln memorial? He was obviously a monster of a man. That thing is huge!

Anonymousx2

Posted 09 March 2008 at 01:27 pm

camilos said: “Also, that picture of Lincoln and General McClellan is incredible. I never knew Lincoln was that tall. He looks like a giant.”

Lincoln was 6’4″ in a time when the average height for a male was about 5’9″. If I remember correctly McClellan was also a bit shorter than average.

Anonymousx2

Posted 09 March 2008 at 01:29 pm

Mr Burns said: “… and you’re sure you haven’t read that in the book “Interesting times” by Terry Pratchett?”

No, I’ve never heard of it before. Is Pratchett one of the co-authors of Good Omens? The name seems familiar.

Also, do you recommend that I read Interesting Times?

Anonymousx2

Posted 09 March 2008 at 01:32 pm

Mr. Burns:

I just now used Google to find Interesting Times.

Waddayaknow? Pratchett is the co-author of Good Omens! My memory still functions somewhat, although I don’t complete function under the tyranny of the memory.

From the description I read, Interesting Times is definitely a novel that I should read.

Thanks for mentioning the title.

Anonymousx2

Posted 09 March 2008 at 01:34 pm

Darn. (Too bad I can’t use words here that fit better my meaning.)

That was supposed to be “…although I don’t completely function under the tyranny of the memory.”

Jaeron

Posted 09 March 2008 at 04:45 pm

camilos said: “I don’t see how an article about a civil war event, an event that happened almost 150 years ago, has anything to do with the current immigration issue.

Let’s stick to the article’s subject and not derail this topic.”

I apologize if my viewpoint offends you, but you need thicker skin. My comment was 100% on topic, and you clearly need to read the rest of the comments, instead of insisting I’m trying to change the topic.

My comment was a response to the following post:

Actually, if one had to assign parties, Hines would’ve been a Democrat then, since he was fighting for the Confederates. The Democrats were the ones advocating the continuation of slavery, the Republicans were the ones abolishing it instead.

My response might not have been on topic to the article, but it was certainly on topic to the responses in these comments. The democrats were claiming that ending slavery would ruin the economy, just as right now they’re claiming that ending illegal immigration would ruin the economy. Very much on topic.

Clearly this issue hits home, and you shouldn’t take it so personally.

Richard Solensky

Posted 09 March 2008 at 05:15 pm

Is this a Mission Impossible reference?”

The Secretary disavows all knowledge of this.

This post will self-destruct in five seconds.

Mr Burns

Posted 10 March 2008 at 12:03 am

Anonymousx2 said: “Mr. Burns:
From the description I read, Interesting Times is definitely a novel that I should read.”

I recommend it, but I think you’ll get the most out of if you’ve read some more of the Discworld books, and paticularly the books starring Rincewind.

Oh, and by the way, there’s even an wikipedia entry for the proverb. Look’s like Terry Pratchett “found” the curse and thought it was too good not to use…

Burning

Posted 10 March 2008 at 03:21 am

Oasx said: “How about doing something about this childish behavior? It is kinda sad that the comments to these interesting articles makes the site look like AICN.”

I agree. I’m doubly surprised to see behavior of this sort on an intellectual sort of site like DI. If I were Alan Bellows, I would consider deleting the ridiculous “first/second” post. Its juvenile.

Hoekstes

Posted 10 March 2008 at 06:59 am

*Yawn*

American history sucks ass.

Hoekstes

Posted 10 March 2008 at 07:02 am

Terry Pratchett on the other hand…

ROCKS!!!

lostindustrial

Posted 10 March 2008 at 08:14 am

Usually DI articles are very clear and easy to read, but this one was a bit difficult to follow…even with a few grammatical errors I believe? What gives?

atonyt

Posted 10 March 2008 at 09:24 am

I liked the article and agree that Lincoln was only interested in keeping the union together. But a college professor asked our class (this is 6 years ago) “Did Lincoln have the right to stop the southern states” He asked the class if the constitution prevented the southern states from seceding?
I think Lincoln did the right thing at the right time and is one of the few presidents in our history willing to do what is right because it is right instead of what his critics thought. But did he break the constitution by stopping the south from seceding?

The claim that the US Civil War was about anything other than slavery is simple revisionism. It was ONLY about slavery. Lincolns views were to contain and eventually extinguish the institution of slavery the South wanted it spread to New states and territories. States Rights is what the losing side chose to claim when they realized that the war was about a small phrase in the Declaration of Independence. If Lincoln had indeed been only interested in keeping the Union together, then he would have expressed that belief in allowing slavery to spread unchecked. So apparently, the immorality of slavery outweighed his desire to keep the South from seceding.

As to what the Southern states express as the reasons for leaving… it all boils down to a desire to maintain the institution of slavery.

And to Jesse_James. The reason that Slave Ships sailed under US flag is that the maritime trade of slaves was banned long before the civil war began…thus ensuring that no CSA flagged slave ship ever sailed.

Know your history and you will know yourself, mate.

plagiarism

Posted 10 March 2008 at 01:30 pm

Too much of this article is copied word-for-word from the CIA article referenced. Just because you list it as a reference doesn’t mean you can copy without appropriate attribution.

sh0cktopus

Posted 10 March 2008 at 01:59 pm

It’s definitely interesting to contemplate the way things could have turned out differently at a nexus in history such as this. However, it doesn’t seem like these guys had much of a chance of tipping the scales, given their success rate of 0%. Guerrilla tactics can be very effective as a disruptive nuisance, but it takes quite a tactical mastermind to greatly influence the outcome of a situation in this way, in my opinion.

Just to chime in on the “first” debate; get used to it, my friends. I don’t like it either, but it doesn’t look like it’s going away any time soon. In fact, I think this article set a new record for DI: the first six posts had nothing to say except for ballyhooing their place in line. What do you want Bellows and Co. to do? Put a rating system on your comment, “Did you find this helpful? Y/N” and if it goes too negative you have to click a button to show it? Then I’ll be wasting more time, wondering what the person said that was so offensive to the community, only to click on it and see “OMG! I cracked the top 100! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”

Alan Bellows

Posted 10 March 2008 at 02:23 pm

plagiarism said: “Too much of this article is copied word-for-word from the CIA article referenced. Just because you list it as a reference doesn’t mean you can copy without appropriate attribution.”

I just went and checked out this claim, and while the text isn’t identical, Richard’s text is uncomfortably close to the source material’s in a couple places. We will remedy the oversight ASAP. Thanks for the heads-up, we absolutely don’t want to appear to be taking credit for others’ writings.

Silverhill

Posted 10 March 2008 at 04:45 pm

atonyt said: “a college professor asked our class … if the constitution prevented the southern states from seceding”

I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any other kind), but my take on it is: a potential state must ask permission to join the Union, and the Union must then decide whether to alter itself to accommodate the state. Similarly, a state wishing to leave must first ask, then have the petition approved. (That’s the way it should be, IMHO.)

Hoekstes said: “*Yawn*

American history sucks ass.”

Not very enlightening, Hoekstes. Do you mean that the history itself is bad, uninteresting, etc., or that merely the the study thereof is objectionable?

If you mean the former, well, you’ll find quite a lot of people who will disagree with you; there have been a large number of fascinating developments in American history (for both good and ill, of course), without which the modern world would be very different (and probably a lot worse off).

If you mean the latter, well, so be it. Go study something else, and refrain from (effectively) flipping off those of us who enjoy learning things here.

Anonymousx2

Posted 10 March 2008 at 04:52 pm

Oasx said: “How about doing something about this childish behavior? It is kinda sad that the comments to these interesting articles makes the site look like AICN.”

What is AICN? I have been to that site.

Alan Bellows

Posted 10 March 2008 at 04:53 pm

Alan Bellows said: “I just went and checked out this claim, and while the text isn’t identical, Richard’s text is uncomfortably close to the source material’s in a couple places. We will remedy the oversight ASAP. Thanks for the heads-up, we absolutely don’t want to appear to be taking credit for others’ writings.”

Richard was kind enough to rework the offending portions to make them less similar to the original. No portion was exactly the same, but a couple were close enough that the resemblance was indeed noticeable. Sorry about that!

The claim that the US Civil War was about anything other than slavery is simple revisionism. It was ONLY about slavery. Lincolns views were to contain and eventually extinguish the institution of slavery the South wanted it spread to New states and territories. States Rights is what the losing side chose to claim when they realized that the war was about a small phrase in the Declaration of Independence. If Lincoln had indeed been only interested in keeping the Union together, then he would have expressed that belief in allowing slavery to spread unchecked. So apparently, the immorality of slavery outweighed his desire to keep the South from seceding.

As to what the Southern states express as the reasons for leaving… it all boils down to a desire to maintain the institution of slavery.

And to Jesse_James. The reason that Slave Ships sailed under US flag is that the maritime trade of slaves was banned long before the civil war began…thus ensuring that no CSA flagged slave ship ever sailed.

Know your history and you will know yourself, mate.”

I am always glad to admit error when presented with a logical argument that is supported by references and a preponderance of scholarly agreement.

Please list your sources so that I can read them and then change my thinking because of new information.

Thanks.

Richard Solensky

Posted 10 March 2008 at 06:06 pm

plagiarism said: “Too much of this article is copied word-for-word from the CIA article referenced. Just because you list it as a reference doesn’t mean you can copy without appropriate attribution.”

Thank you for pointing this out. I apologize for the error, it was entirely mine.

In my excitement and haste in getting the article ready for posting, I neglected to keep a close eye on that part of my work. In my defense, when it comes to matters of historical fact, there are only so many ways that you can describe them. Still, I should have been more careful and chosen another way.

I shall do my best to be more vigilant in the future.

Anonymousx2

Posted 10 March 2008 at 06:27 pm

Anonymousx2 said: “What is AICN? I have been to that site.”

Crud. I meant to write “What is AICN? I have never been to that site.”

Hey love this fun website. Quick question a few stories ago someone recommended reading Bryson’s A short history of nearly everything, I loved it! Anyone else have any good reads they would like to recommend?

Bolens

Posted 11 March 2008 at 06:55 am

Historical revisionism is choosing to be a slave to ignorance.

atonyt

Posted 11 March 2008 at 07:06 am

Here is one other bit up for debate on the Did Lincoln only care about keeping the union together It is believed by some that the south was courting the British to step in on their behalf and assist during the Civil War. The British were still upset about 1812 and were likely entertaining the idea of coming to the Confederates aid. The only hang up was that the British citizens in general were against slavery and the government would have a hard time selling the idea to the public. I guess Lincoln got word about the possible involvement by the British and then came the Emancipation Proclamation, thus ending any chance of the British coming to the aid of the Confederates. So it was proposed that the Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move for the military and not really a civil rights move.

This is what I was taught in class. I think it is a really neat bit of information that put a new light on the time. Has anyone else heard this before or have any idea on this matter?

washingtonson

Posted 11 March 2008 at 07:45 am

Dtex
Just some info for you at the time of the Civil War “Republicans” were not the same party as the republicans of today. At this time in history a republican was just a person who supported the republic. The current Republican and Dumbocratic parties, as we know them, did not take shape until much later in American history.

Yrotsih

Posted 11 March 2008 at 07:48 am

Seems like if they had picked more normal dates, their plans may have actually worked. I understand how much more intense the panic would have been during those political dates had they succeeded. Hopefully the conspirators would’ve realized that of course security is beefed up on political dates. So, what some people have been saying, I agree it’s accurate to think that Hines overestimated his group’s abilities, and the Union’s intelligence gathering.

It would be very interesting to just get a glimpse of the world if certain events didn’t end how they actually did. Like if the Confederates won, if we didn’t win the Revolutionary War, just pick any event in history. If it was different, this world would be so different. Amazing.

beliefunwrought

Posted 11 March 2008 at 08:57 am

I’m not sure if some one has already brought this up or not but, the Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves. It freed the slaves in states that had seceded from the Union. And not all pro-slavery states ended up seceding from the union, and slave owners in those states (Maryland, Kentucky) were allowed to keep their slaves until the 13th amendment was passed.

sapguy_wi said: “If Lincoln had indeed been only interested in keeping the Union together, then he would have expressed that belief in allowing slavery to spread unchecked. So apparently, the immorality of slavery outweighed his desire to keep the South from seceding.”

What’s interesting is that not only did he allow slavery to go unchecked in states that remained in the Union, but he actually said that his only goal in fighting the war was to preserve the Union: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.”

atonyt said: “Here is one other bit up for debate on the Did Lincoln only care about keeping the union together It is believed by some that the south was courting the British to step in on their behalf and assist during the Civil War. The British were still upset about 1812 and were likely entertaining the idea of coming to the Confederates aid. The only hang up was that the British citizens in general were against slavery and the government would have a hard time selling the idea to the public. I guess Lincoln got word about the possible involvement by the British and then came the Emancipation Proclamation, thus ending any chance of the British coming to the aid of the Confederates. So it was proposed that the Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic move for the military and not really a civil rights move.

This is what I was taught in class. I think it is a really neat bit of information that put a new light on the time. Has anyone else heard this before or have any idea on this matter?”

The south was courting the British and, in fact, had sent what it considered to be ambassadors to both England and France in hopes of getting recognition as an independant state. On the way to England, the ship the “ambassadors” were sailing in was stopped by Union naval forces. This almost resulted in a war between the US and England, due to the fact that the ship was a British vessel and the English didn’t much care for having one of their ships taken by the United States. Unfortunately for the Confederacy, despite offers of large amounts of cotton, neither the British nor the French were willing to recognize them as a new country. The British public was adamantly anti-slavery and Napoleon III was unwilling to do anything without the expressed consent of the British government.

bobba

Posted 11 March 2008 at 09:50 am

Ironic really seeing as the USA only wanted separation from Britain in the first place so the tobacco and cotton farmers (and their rich benefactors) could keep slaves.

cephalgia

Posted 11 March 2008 at 10:00 am

This was an unknown part of the Civil War for me. Good article. Keep ’em coming!

superslicedog

Posted 11 March 2008 at 11:13 am

as per usual when your cause isn’t just, defectors, leaky information and so on are inevitable. No one wants to stand up for evil.

beliefunwrought

Posted 11 March 2008 at 11:40 am

superslicedog said: “as per usual when your cause isn’t just, defectors, leaky information and so on are inevitable. No one wants to stand up for evil.”

Which would make a lot more sense if there weren’t defectors, leaks and such on both sides. So I guess everyone involved in the Civil War was evil and neither side was just?

JustcallmeChug

Posted 11 March 2008 at 12:57 pm

I know that what I’m about to say will offend many people, but it is the “fact of the matter”. All of the discussed legal proclomations were politicly motivated. Unfortunately, that hasn’t changed in the current USA. The truth is that anybody either in office or running for it will say or do anything to achieve their personal goals. This is not to say that the people who actually fought in the war didn’t have their own noble reasons for doing so, and that includes both sides. The polititions, however, were doing their best to stir the emotions of their constituants with whatever fuel they could find. Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying that either side was right or wrong, I’m just saying that the whole ugly ordeal was politicly motivated. And the scary thing is that the same two party system that caused the civil war is still in place. That’s why I’m inclined to vote independant whenever the option presents itself.

Anonymousx2

Posted 11 March 2008 at 05:40 pm

materialgirl said: “Hey love this fun website. Quick question a few stories ago someone recommended reading Bryson’s A short history of nearly everything, I loved it! Anyone else have any good reads they would like to recommend?”

I was the one who recommended that book. I can also recommend Flyboys, Good Omens, Why People Believe in Weird Things, and Amusing Ourselves to Death.

I have quite a few more, if you are interested. My reading tastes cover nearly every subject, but I make no guarantees that my comprehension of the subject matter does.

Master Shake

Posted 11 March 2008 at 09:28 pm

Wow, that was so much fun to read. I’ve never been to this site before today, but i think i might become a frequent visitor! Unfortunately, you just never hear about these kind of things in school.

Dave Group

Posted 12 March 2008 at 01:29 am

Richard Solensky said: “Thank you for pointing this out. I apologize for the error, it was entirely mine.

In my excitement and haste in getting the article ready for posting, I neglected to keep a close eye on that part of my work. In my defense, when it comes to matters of historical fact, there are only so many ways that you can describe them. Still, I should have been more careful and chosen another way.

I shall do my best to be more vigilant in the future.”

Reminds me of a hilarious episode of The Bob Newhart Show where he is accused of plagiarizing a how-to book. Years ago, when I was doing research for my book on the Bermuda Triangle, I noticed that some authors lifted entire paragraphs verbatim from previous books, thus perpetuating errors and misinformation.

Anonymousx2

Posted 12 March 2008 at 05:31 am

materialgirl said: “Hey love this fun website. Quick question a few stories ago someone recommended reading Bryson’s A short history of nearly everything, I loved it! Anyone else have any good reads they would like to recommend?”

I forgot to mention one of my favorites: A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole. It is one of the best, most hilarious, most insightful novels I have ever read. Toole wrote his first novel, The Neon Bible, at age 16. He committed suicide when he was in his twenties. (I think that he was in his twenties; he was extremely young, at any rate.) Both novels were published posthumously.

I cannot speak to the quality of The Neon Bible, having never read it. Persons whose opinions I trust have read it, and they highly recommend it.

camilos said: “I don’t see how an article about a civil war event, an event that happened almost 150 years ago, has anything to do with the current immigration issue.

Let’s stick to the article’s subject and not derail this topic.”

Illegal immigration fits this conversation perfectly.
The civil war was not fought to free the slaves, but, while allowing that everyone had their own reasons for fighting, slavery was probably the major reason. It’s like this: The slave holding states knew that slavery had to expand into more states in order to survive. If the number of slave holding states did not increase, slavery would be abolished eventually because the abolitionists were winning the day in the more populous north. The South’s economy depended on slavery – it was a money issue. As they tried to move slavery west, abolitionist sympathies grew stronger in the north. “Why?” you ask. Good question. Because as long as slavery was limited to cotton and tobacco it posed no threat to the value of the labor of free men in the North. The minute it left cotton and tobacco economies, the value the labor produced by free men was reduced to nearly nothing: The employer would have to ask, “Why should I pay your wages when I can hire a slave and all I have to do is house and feed him at a minimal level? You free men are too expensive!” To survive, Northern free laborers could not allow slavery to expand, but the Southern slaveholders knew it must expand to survive. War was inevitable.

Illegal Immigration fits perfectly. Example: I have been watching them build an apartment building near my place of employment. 90% of the labor is immigrant labor – including the skilled trades, like electrician. I heard an electrician discuss the issues: The builder hires one master electrician to inspect all the work of the immigrants. The immigrants do the work for less than half of what an apprentice makes in union shops. The value of journeymen electricians is squat; the value of a master electrician is squat because so few are needed; the value of apprentice is squat.

The arguments against NAFTA also fit the civil war model perfectly. The proof is left to the reader.

Anonymousx2

Posted 13 March 2008 at 05:57 am

quasimodo said: “Illegal Immigration fits perfectly. Example: I have been watching them build an apartment building near my place of employment. 90% of the labor is immigrant labor – including the skilled trades, like electrician. I heard an electrician discuss the issues: The builder hires one master electrician to inspect all the work of the immigrants. The immigrants do the work for less than half of what an apprentice makes in union shops. The value of journeymen electricians is squat; the value of a master electrician is squat because so few are needed; the value of apprentice is squat.

The arguments against NAFTA also fit the civil war model perfectly. The proof is left to the reader.”

Have you considered contacting the authorities?

quasimodo

Posted 13 March 2008 at 07:22 am

Anonymousx2 said: “Have you considered contacting the authorities?”

Why bother? They know what is going on – they are not blind. I have no evidence they are illegal.

In the last year have you seen a drywall job being done? A roofing job? Around here all the crews have one thing in common.

And, you know what? They do good work fast, generally speaking.

The causes of the civil war fit the illegal immigration discussion (and NAFTA) very well. It centers around the value of a man’s labor. Only this time, we’ve priced ourselves out of the market. In this (global) market, we are not worth what we expect to be paid. There is nothing that can be done unilaterally about the globalization of the economy. If anyone tries, they’ll be as successful as the Southern slave holders, but instead of loosing a war, they’ll destroy the economy.

Inti

Posted 13 March 2008 at 08:15 am

So what to do against immigration? Wage a war against Mexico? Such a thing, coming from the current white house administration would not surprise me these days.

There is a very large asymmetry in the methods used to receive people into the U.S. and the way other countries accept U. S. citizens into their territories. For example, very few countries in South America require a visa permit for a U. S. citizen to enter the country, often with long-term economical interests in the host country. From the little I know on this issue, only Brazil demands visa permits to U. S. citizens.

However, what is truly paradoxical, is the pressure the U. S. government has impinged upon the last 10 years over South American governments to accept bilateral free-trade agreements. I remember some studies arguing that the U. S. economy was something like 1.000 times bigger than all South America together. You can think what such kind of free-trade agreements will do to the economies of this smaller and weaker countries. In any case, we all lose, while a little elite gets richer with the cheap labor of everyone else.

Maybe the war should be waged against someone else?

materialgirl

Posted 13 March 2008 at 08:24 am

I forgot to mention one of my favorites: A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole. It is one of the best, most hilarious, most insightful novels I have ever read. Toole wrote his first novel, The Neon Bible, at age 16. He committed suicide when he was in his twenties. (I think that he was in his twenties; he was extremely young, at any rate.) Both novels were published posthumously.

Thanks for the recommendations! I will have to check these out soon. Also if you’re looking for something interesting try reading The Knife Man. Its about John Hunter of the Hunterian Museum somewhere in Europe. Anyway he really revolutionized surgery practices back in the 1800s or so, cant remember the dates but very good book.

Anthropositor

Posted 13 March 2008 at 10:17 am

I stumbled in on this blog a couple days ago. I started a blog with the intent of starting some intelligent dialogues involving science and creativity. Being entirely experimental, and not being too computer conversant but having some interesting ideas in various fields, I anticipated that in a matter of months, I would have some lively and stimulating ongoing dialogues going. Sadly, it’s been more than a year now and my expectations show no sign whatsoever of bearing fruit.

True, I have been somewhat experimental and iconoclastic, once in a while, even to the point of abrasiveness. To my mind, a little excitement is not a bad thing. At the same time I was experimenting with the blog form, I was posting on a health oriented site, Skin Cell Forum, which was, by comparison, well trafficked. Since I sometimes express my perspectives with a certain vigor and whimsy, my posts sometimes generated as much heat as light.

With both the forum and the blog, I noticed that no matter how much care was employed in a piece of writing, responses tended to be casual, flighty, and with some few exceptions, with only occasional merit.

To date, this is the most compelling blog I have come across in my travels. To see your success heartens me, and renews my hope that my efforts, focused more on ideas and creativity, may yet have some hope for eventual success. I want to thank you for the inspiration you have provided and encourage those who comment on each of your contributions to actually add intrinsically meaningful opinions and ideas. The comments perhaps take up eight or ten times the space of the original article, with a very tiny fraction of the informational value. I encourage this same sort of care on Skin Cell Forum, and on my blog, Eureka Ideas Unlimited.
eurekaideasunlimited.blogspot.com

Please, everyone, if you are going to say something, say something. That is the highest complement you can give to the talented men who have so ably provided you with this valuable resource.

3ThreeIII

Posted 13 March 2008 at 10:19 am

You have to wonder, is history completely sure that Hines was not a Union double Agent?

To be good enough to organize and lead hundreds to failure and arrest in what seems like dozens of plots would be a rare skill.

Something about how he was never held made me wonder…

quasimodo

Posted 13 March 2008 at 10:20 am

Inti said: “So what to do against immigration? Wage a war against Mexico? Such a thing, coming from the current white house administration would not surprise me these days.

Good for you! It doesn’t seem those rushing to be “First” bother. Maybe they are afraid of learning something.

Saustain

Posted 13 March 2008 at 04:08 pm

Two posts that refer to that great american novel: Conferacy of Dunces (by Anonymousx2 and materialgirl) and then a satorical retort from Anthropositor. Certainly, Anthropositor is an alias for Ignatius J Reilly! May Fortuna smile upon your theology and geometry!

One never expects to find three such minds enlightened by the readings of Boethius in the modern world. Whilst this blog is no replacement for a Big Chief writing tablet, it is a bright beacon in an otherwise dark, depressed modern world.

Tim123

Posted 13 March 2008 at 06:35 pm

3ThreeIII said: “You have to wonder, is history completely sure that Hines was not a Union double Agent?

To be good enough to organize and lead hundreds to failure and arrest in what seems like dozens of plots would be a rare skill.

Something about how he was never held made me wonder…”

bullseye. After the fact its obvious what happened isn’t it. Good post.

Tim123

Posted 13 March 2008 at 06:39 pm

Ended his career in a posh government position too didn’t he. bullseye.

Not that there is anything wrong w/ what he did. The man was likely a genius.

MonkeyBones

Posted 13 March 2008 at 07:22 pm

During heat waves, some people faint. Eastern standard timely speaking, plucking a rooster’s feathers will hurt him, and retribution from the egg laying chicken might be severe enough to make you wish you were yogourt! Meanwhile, Jupiter’s gravity causes powerful tides on Titan, which reacts by vomiting lava all over the place. WHY? You brought religion into my life, I never believed in Hell until I met you. Why so many irrelevant sentences in this pointless comment? Are you wasting your time reading this? Maybe not if your goal is childish retribution to my senseless reflections, maybe not if your laughing happily while eating a chocolate cookie, but worst of all, maybe you ARE losing your time, and asking yourself… Why the hell am I still reading this crap? Is he going to conclude with something credible? The asnwer is: No.

Bewildered

Posted 13 March 2008 at 08:56 pm

I’d love to meet the ‘First’ posters – I bet you are all the people that were hated at school… We still hate you… Losers :-) I didn’t actually read this article. I got through the first bit, and although it looks well written, I’m not interested in politics, so I decided to slag the first posters instread… Yep, I’m bored.

Anthropositor

Posted 13 March 2008 at 10:16 pm

Saustain,
I had no idea I was retorting to something. I am a couple of years into recovery from a stroke that screwed up my chess for a while and caused certain lapses of memory, making me more normally stupid than I once was, which is sometimes rather refreshing, oddly. Perhaps that’s why some get stuck in that mode. As for me, I intend to continue to fight it.

Conferacy of Dunces; Ignatius J Riley; satorical? I have on occasion been satirical. Clearly, there does seem to be a confederacy of dunces at times, but I think it is an illusion. They can’t really get organized, can they? Fortuna smiling on me… that has a pleasant ring to it. She is going to have to smile on something other than my theology however. I was a refugee from a Presbyterian Totalitarian Dictatorship at a very early age. I continue to be of agnostic discipline.

I expect that Boethius was some sort of interesting fellow. If he was as interesting as Pirsig, I thank you.

Monkeybones, perhaps you are recovering from a stroke as well? The confusion does go away. Try not to cling to it. Think of Io rather than Titan; perhaps spewing? I hope you have a caregiver…? Here is a poem that may be of comfort to you.

I think.
Therefore I am
Confused.

Hoekstes

Posted 14 March 2008 at 01:14 am

Geez I’m feeling so guilty about my jab at American history after reading Anthropositors first post. (By the way, you couldn’t come up with something shorter than eurekaideasunlimited.blogspot.com ?). Anyway, I heard an interesting argument a few days ago that might be of some interest (since we’re on the labour topic).

Some of the big ideas in Africa in the old colonial countries like Zimbabwe and South Africa these days are Black Economic Empowerment (BEE), Affirmative Action (AA) and Historical Land Claims. In a nutshell, companies should have a certain percentage black ownership, should employ a certain percentage black employees and the historical “owners” of land can claim their ancestors heritage. All these ideas are, of course, politically correct. However, there is a substansial divide between ideology and implementation. Example: Should hospitals employ doctors that were top of their class, or black doctors. Before answering this, ask yourself this question: “Is the pass rate in South African universities influenced by Affirmative Action, or do black students just miraculously maintain high pass rates.” Example 2: Your relatives in Africa have operated a wine farm since the 1700’s. Suddenly, someone else claims that his distant ancestors lived on that piece of land in the 1600’s and must have been forcibly removed by your ancestors. Do you give him the wine farm? Do you allow him to take it? Now for the cruncher: Shouldn’t the United States of America return all of it’s land to the Red Indians who live in reservations? Shouldn’t each American company have at least 60% Red Indian directors, shareholders and employees?

It sounds a bit worse when it hits closer to home doesn’t it.

shanachie

Posted 14 March 2008 at 04:28 am

Oh, yeah: Happy Pi(e) Day! (3/14?)

I’ve been waiting almost a year to use that. One thing off my To-Do list.

Anonymousx2

Posted 14 March 2008 at 05:25 am

Anthropositor said: “Clearly, there does seem to be a confederacy of dunces at times, but I think it is an illusion. They can’t really get organized, can they?

I think.

Therefore I am

Confused.”

Titan? As in Sirens of Titan? Sadly, we lost him recently, along with Paul Tibbets. Yes, different vocations but important persons in the fabric of America.

We have several confederacy of dunces, about 51 total. 50 on the state level, 1 on the national level. And I’m glad that they are not organized. If they could actually work together, the people would be in even worse shape than we are now. Nothing more dangerous than an efficient legislature (check out some of Frank Herbert’s works about this topic).

Line for materialistic America: “I consume; therefore, I exist.”

Final point: Clarity of thought is overrated. Just look at what the lack of it did for Ronald Reagan.

Anonymousx2

Posted 14 March 2008 at 05:27 am

Oops. Forgot something.

Of course, the current transient on Pennsylvania Avenue doesn’t have to worry about clarity of thought or the lack of it. Having no thoughts at all solves that problem.

Anonymousx2

Posted 14 March 2008 at 05:31 am

Must be tired this morning.

That should have been “confederacies of dunces.”

I am not part of a confederacy of dunces.

This morning, I am an army of one.

Anthropositor

Posted 14 March 2008 at 07:28 am

Thanks for the congenial welcome folks. I had sort of expected perhaps a burst of flame from Monkeybones’ Zippo. My reference to Titan had nothing to do with Science Fiction, but rather gross science error. It also had nothing to do with Sirens of Titan, which I certainly must have read, but don’t remember at all.

The gross error(s)? Titan does not have volcanoes “vomiting” lava all over the place. Nor does Jupiter have any but the most infinitely minuscule tidal effects on Titan, Titan being a satellite of Saturn, which is rarely in the neighborhood. Exerting my admittedly scant skills of diplomacy, I suggested that Io was probably the satellite he meant in the light and fluffy comment #89. Io does indeed have, the most spectacular volcanoes in the solar system, due to its’ proximity to Jupiter, and the intensity of the Jovian gravitational effects.

The remainder of my remarks to him were not sarcasm, but motivated by concern. I do hope he gets a hold of himself. He may find that a more pleasant activity than random nonsense, though some eventual spewing could be involved.

MonkeyBones

Posted 14 March 2008 at 07:37 am

Why the hell did I refer to the moon Titan? It’s not even ont of Jupiter’s moons! Maybe I had a lapsus and in the heat of the moment, without thinking too much, saw titanic volcanoes with my mind’s eye, and requalified Io as Titan. I am truly sorry for the mishap, and promise I will do it again in a future post. And Anthropositor, of course I had a stroke, or else I would be proving that you are far from being perspicacious! Don’t have to get all judgemental about it… Just enjoy the non sense! Bathe in it! Enjoy while it lasts because in the end, while we think we are so well informed, interested and interesting and witted, we are only dust. And well… dust doesn’t do much beside doing nothing. Once again, a melting popscicle contributed to the rise of the oceans, and the Sun is a red giant, cooking us all to a crisp.

While I thrive with reasoned responses and challenging debate, I really think you can do better than that. I am sure you have something better than insults, so please start thinking a little. I am waiting…!

Cheers!

klone

Posted 14 March 2008 at 10:19 am

oneHundredth? Wow, Hines had some awful bad luck

Anthropositor

Posted 14 March 2008 at 11:40 am

MB
When you bathe in nonsense, it doesn’t just rub off on you. It soaks in and eventually permeates you. Not a good thing. It is a habit which, once entrenched, is extremely difficult to give up. Do what you can. Go in peace, and prosper.

sid

Posted 14 March 2008 at 01:49 pm

Inti said: “So what to do against immigration? Wage a war against Mexico? Such a thing, coming from the current white house administration would not surprise me these days.

What a surprise! You wade in with a paranoid rant about how you think it would not be a surprise for the United States to wage war on Mexico. In another post in another thread, you said something to the effect that you thought the U.S. would invade your country. You may need some medication to treat your anti-U.S. paranoia.

There is a very large asymmetry in the methods used to receive people into the U.S. and the way other countries accept U. S. citizens into their territories. For example, very few countries in South America require a visa permit for a U. S. citizen to enter the country, often with long-term economical interests in the host country. From the little I know on this issue, only Brazil demands visa permits to U. S. citizens.

Gee, let’s see if we can figure this one out. If there is some sort of “asymmetry,” might that have something to do with the number of people trying to get into the U.S., then stay illegally? Many countries require visas, or at least strongly recommend them. Many years ago, I went to England, and was denied entry because I had no visa, and they thought I was coming to stay longer than my ticketed return flight indicated. In this day and age, it’s probably a good idea for visa requirements.

However, what is truly paradoxical, is the pressure the U. S. government has impinged upon the last 10 years over South American governments to accept bilateral free-trade agreements. I remember some studies arguing that the U. S. economy was something like 1.000 times bigger than all South America together. You can think what such kind of free-trade agreements will do to the economies of this smaller and weaker countries. In any case, we all lose, while a little elite gets richer with the cheap labor of everyone else.

Free trade isn’t necessarily a bad idea. It’s all in the implementation. Plus, with the ever-evolving global economy, it’s something that needs to be addressed. Not sure what specific problems you have with U.S.-South America trade agreements, though, so I cannot possibly comment in any detail.

Maybe the war should be waged against someone else?”

Suggestion? Or would you rather stick to speaking in vague generalities. When it comes to political matters, that seems to be all you do.

Inti

Posted 14 March 2008 at 02:54 pm

Sid, it’s been a while since our last conversation! Thanks for the psychological profile of my person; however, I would like for you to focus on the real issue, and not insult me in the way it always characterizes you. Okay, let’s go to the issues then:

Why do I think the current U. S. administration is a threat? Well, just look around and see how much damage the U.S. international interventions have caused. You might not be very illustrated in international issues, especially if you feed your brain with the crap coming from the U. S. news networks. For example, just a couple of weeks ago, Colombia made a military intervention within Ecuador’s territory, killing about 20 guerilla commandos, including 5 Mexican student’s that were doing research regarding the life and politics of the oldest guerilla in modern history. Guess now which is the second country, after Israel, in the list of major military investments from part of the U.S?

Second point, according to your logic, it is actually good that countries restrict the entry of foreigners into their territories. How good can that really be? According to what kind of rationale would you restrict people entering in your country? Money, race, religion, give me a good reason to believe it is actually a good idea to ask for visas. Perhaps the European Union is just a big mistake according to you?

Third point. So you think free market is good but you want to restrict people from migrating to places they think are better for their lives? Good, according to your logic, money can travel everywhere, but people can’t. Perhaps, you give more importance to money than to people, that’s okay. Oh! Yes, money must travel from poor to rich countries right? But wait! Only rich people can travel to poor countries, but you must stop the immigration of poor and uneducated people to rich countries. Got it!

In your reply, please avoid generalities, go to the specifics, examples, and please leave any psychological profile for yourself.

Peace!

sapguy_wi

Posted 14 March 2008 at 03:19 pm

Tag!

For example, just a couple of weeks ago, Colombia made a military intervention within Ecuador’s territory, killing about 20 guerilla commandos, including 5 Mexican student’s that were doing research regarding the life and politics of the oldest guerilla in modern history.

And who else did they kill? That’s right, an individual that ran a terrorist organization dedicated to toppling the Columbian govt. It appears that if Ecuador harbored a criminal, then they should expect the military intervention. Sipping High-Tea over the issue would have ensured only that the FARC terrorist would have been free to kill again and again. As for the Mexicans killed in the attack…lay down with Dogs, wake up with fleas…. (if you wake up at all that is)

Second point, according to your logic, it is actually good that countries restrict the entry of foreigners into their territories. How good can that really be?

Quite good actually. Any country that cannot control it’s borders will cease to exist in the long run. Usually this is addressed to the Southern Border the US has with Mexico. Why does Mexico restrict its southern border? Why can we not do as they do? I’ve nothing against immigrants (my wife being one) I just desire that they follow the LAWS of the nation they wish to be a part of. That means they get in line like everyone else.

Third point. So you think free market is good but you want to restrict people from migrating to places they think are better for their lives? Good, according to your logic, money can travel everywhere, but people can’t. Perhaps, you give more importance to money than to people, that’s okay. Oh! Yes, money must travel from poor to rich countries right? But wait! Only rich people can travel to poor countries, but you must stop the immigration of poor and uneducated people to rich countries. Got it!

That’s not an argument. Please learn the difference between an argument and a complaint. My take on that is that there a re laws governing the transfer of funds between nation s, why should there not be for people as well? You obviously advocate open borders and the right to go where one pleases. Perhaps the US should just invade Mexico… after all, we’d just be fixing an economy that Mexico is unwilling to.

Inti

Posted 14 March 2008 at 03:43 pm

Would T. H. Hines be called a terrorists by the Union and a hero by the Confederates? Would the many guerrillas during the war for independence in the U.S. be called terrorists by the Royal Crown in England? Would the FARC guerilla in Colombia be called terrorists by the landlords and druglords allied with the economical elites? Would Luis Posada Carriles (73 people killed with a bomb in an airplane) be called a terrorist by the Cuban government and a political refugee by the US?

Of course, this nothing had to do with killing innocents and crashing planes in skyscrapers, all for the sake of a religious delusion; a delusion similar in magnitude but not in sense as invading a country for the sake of inexistent WMDs.

sid

Posted 15 March 2008 at 04:59 pm

Inti said: “Sid, it’s been a while since our last conversation! Thanks for the psychological profile of my person; however, I would like for you to focus on the real issue, and not insult me in the way it always characterizes you. Okay, let’s go to the issues then:
“

Always a pleasure observing one with such a clearly troubled mind. And, fortunately, from relative safety. I can only imagine what you might do to someone in close proximity who might have the nerve to express admiration or just simple respect for the U.S. Your propensity for emotional outbursts must have folks who know you walking on eggshells.

But there’s not much point to responding to your diversionary attempt until it becomes evident that you have changed your tactic of avoidance, as documented in previous exchanges. Address my response to your initial outburst (from this thread, at least) of U.S.-bashing rhetoric and I’ll consider your points for response. You won’t like it, though. You really don’t do very well in the realm of political theory and philosophy, so you should probably just stick to commenting on scientific and technical stuff. There, you seem to do OK.

Oh, and if you hadn’t noticed, I’m going to continue to insult you as long as you continue with your overblown, irrational, anti-U.S. rhetoric, as well as continue with your ham-fisted attempts at making points on issues where you haven’t the slightest grasp of reality.

sid

Posted 15 March 2008 at 05:11 pm

I believe some have wondered what might have happened if Hines had been successful, and others about Lincoln’s true motivations. Someone, I think, also pondered about alternate histories, and there have been book recommendations passed around. In an attempt to try to tie all of these things together, although loosely, I suggest The Collected WHAT IF? An interesting collection of counterfactual works on history, with one even called What If Lincoln Had Not Freed The Slaves? Nothing on Hines, but I did say I was tying these things together loosely.

Inti

Posted 16 March 2008 at 09:21 pm

Sid,
My initial phrase, the one that enraged you and forced me to respond was that I would not be surprised if the U. S. government continues to invade countries based on false premises. That is a fact. You might have leaved that single phrase alone, but you must attack me with unjustified rhetoric. I would like interesting comments, reasoned arguments against my claims. I have addressed each one of your points, proof of it is your enraged attack on my person. If you proof me wrong on a particular item, I will surely agree on it. Reality hides, certainly, behind the mist of our senses; yet, it also depends on where and how you live, how you perceive the world, and more importantly, who tells you what is good and what is bad . I have commented on what seems to be reality from my particular perspective, I always look for evidence and facts. In reality, nothing is totally black or white. \

sid

Posted 17 March 2008 at 09:46 am

Inti said: “Sid,
My initial phrase, the one that enraged you and forced me to respond was that I would not be surprised if the U. S. government continues to invade countries based on false premises. That is a fact. You might have leaved that single phrase alone, but you must attack me with unjustified rhetoric.

Enraged? Seems to me you are projecting. Or simply using the same tactics one might experience when debating a child. When you make your outrageous claims, I merely point out what you are doing. If you consider someone “enraged” for disagreeing with you, pointing out flaws in your views, or simply asking for more details when you are intentionally vague, then you must deal with a whole lot of “enraged” people. Yes, I could have “leaved” alone your provocative posting. But the fact that I chose to address it does not mean I was “enraged.” It simply means I chose to respond. The fact that I choose to insult you also does not mean I am “enraged.” It simply means I do not respect either your views or your inability to defend them.

I would like interesting comments, reasoned arguments against my claims. I have addressed each one of your points, proof of it is your enraged attack on my person.

Which points have you addressed? Much of my post was simply exposing your seething hatred, rage, and paranoia against America, a tactic you have so cleverly tried to reverse by claiming I must be “enraged” by your twisted views. I experienced similar tactics in grade school, and often times more effectively. Yes, I’m still insulting you, or, more accurately, your stated and implied views. But you didn’t really address any of the “invasion” points. Those points were that you would not be surprised should the U.S. wage war on Mexico or invade your home country. If you think implying the U.S. regularly invades countries on false premises supports your paranoid view, it does not. The only “false premises” example you may be able to point to as a current issue would be Iraq, which is clearly debatable. The WMD nexus has been, and remains, on shaky ground, but clearly proving an intentional “false premises” argument remains unachieved (those who support the theory notwithstanding, of course). But in order to actually address those paranoid invasion points, you must come up with a similar “false pretenses” argument that is being promoted to raise the spectre of a potential war with either Mexico or your home country. Thus far, I’ve only really seen you make such a bold claim that the U.S. could potentially invade Mexico, and since you don’t say what country you claim, I simply cannot speak to that bit of paranoia.

As for the real points I made, they were regarding free trade and against whom you think a war should be waged. I was looking for details regarding your problems with the concept of free trade. You offered none. I was also looking for a specific answer regarding waging war. Again, you offered none.

If you proof me wrong on a particular item, I will surely agree on it. Reality hides, certainly, behind the mist of our senses; yet, it also depends on where and how you live, how you perceive the world, and more importantly, who tells you what is good and what is bad . I have commented on what seems to be reality from my particular perspective, I always look for evidence and facts. In reality, nothing is totally black or white. \”

So, address the points I first raised (and with specifics, not vague, evocative rhetoric), and I will consider a detailed evisceration of the opinions offered in #103.

In closing, try not to simply copy my techniques. When I state you are using rhetoric, don’t simply respond with claiming I am using rhetoric. When I insult you, don’t feign outrage then hurl your own insults. And when I point out your obvious rage, don’t try to claim I am the one enraged. Try to be a little original and creative in this kind of dialogue. And take a little time before you launch the next assault on your keyboard. Your writing skills seem to fluctuate wildly, with the most glaring errors occuring when one would presume you are simply beside yourself with anger as you pound out a response. Just relax. It may improve your writing (although, perhaps not your logic), and it may make you a better person.

Inti

Posted 17 March 2008 at 11:01 am

Sid,

It bothers me a little your complaints on my writing and language. Just so you know, English is not the only language around, and many had to learn it as a second tongue.

The last thing I will say, briefly, is that you my dear friend are that particular example of North American that has never traveled abroad, think that your country is the light of freedom and justice, refuse to look beyond your own inner circle of comfort, and enjoys and overwhelming unjustified proud, typical of your kind. Sooner or later you are going to meet reality face on, and I bet it will hurt a lot. Cheers!

sid

Posted 17 March 2008 at 11:36 am

Inti said: “Sid,

It bothers me a little your complaints on my writing and language. Just so you know, English is not the only language around, and many had to learn it as a second tongue.

The last thing I will say, briefly, is that you my dear friend are that particular example of North American that has never traveled abroad, think that your country is the light of freedom and justice, refuse to look beyond your own inner circle of comfort, and enjoys and overwhelming unjustified proud, typical of your kind. Sooner or later you are going to meet reality face on, and I bet it will hurt a lot. Cheers!”

Yes, yes, we all know your claim of having learned English as an adult. You and I have discussed it. Nothing new here, and a tired distraction on your part. Just address my points, or admit you cannot/refuse.

As for your analysis, I was born overseas, and have traveled to every continent except Antarctica. My current resumé includes approximately 30 countries visited, and will expand in the future. If you count countries visited that have since divided and become more than one country, you can probably put me at over 40. Not the greatest example of world travel, but hardly qualifying for your weak attempt at analyzing me.

But I will agree with you that I feel that the U.S. “is the light of freedom and justice,” if any state can claim such a title. It has its problems, for sure, but I will place it above any other country that currently exists when it comes to striking the delicate balance between personal freedom and safety/security. There are other countries that I can see citizens claiming to be superior, and some may even have valid points. I have a pretty good idea from where you come, however, and doubt your country would be in the mix. I have met, and fully understand, reality, and we get along very well.

Keep ducking the issues I bring up, if you wish, but don’t keep trying to bring up the language barrier. You understand and communicate English very well, when it suits your purposes.

Frasier!

Silverhill

Posted 17 March 2008 at 02:25 pm

sid said: “Yes, yes, we all know your claim of having learned English as an adult. You and I have discussed it. Nothing new here, and a tired distraction on your part.”

Yet you took the time to point up the fact that he had written “leaved” instead of “left”. This is a distraction on your part, sid (and a “tired distraction” at that, since you have done similarly with Inti before). Remember the fable of the pot and the kettle.

Remember also to “play nice”, as is said to the children. Even if you sincerely believe that someone is America- (or Bush-)bashing, please refrain from boiling over about it; you don’t serve your cause by exaggerating or being insulting.

(Just my three cents [two cents, adjusted for inflation].)

Anonymousx2

Posted 17 March 2008 at 07:07 pm

Last.

sid

Posted 17 March 2008 at 09:04 pm

Silverhill said: “Yet you took the time to point up the fact that he had written “leaved” instead of “left”. This is a distraction on your part, sid (and a “tired distraction” at that, since you have done similarly with Inti before). Remember the fable of the pot and the kettle.

Remember also to “play nice”, as is said to the children. Even if you sincerely believe that someone is America- (or Bush-)bashing, please refrain from boiling over about it; you don’t serve your cause by exaggerating or being insulting.

(Just my three cents [two cents, adjusted for inflation].)”

Appreciate the input. It’s not a distraction, however, to make light of the languge barrier. At least, not in the sense of trying to evade a question or point, as Inti does. It may be a distraction to those who don’t appreciate my making fun of his error, which may, in turn, distract one from the points I was actually making. If that’s what you meant, point taken.

As for exaggerating, I’m not sure I’ve done that. I freely admit to being insulting, though, and don’t plan on stopping when it comes to Inti. Personally, I don’t respect him or his views. He has advocated the execution of the POTUS and his administration. He has clearly shown he hates America, and made ridiculous comments about the members of its armed forces. You can feel free to “play nice” with people of his ilk, but I will not. Every time he makes one of his outrageous, provocative comments, I’ll call him on it. And every time he evades direct (or even implied) points/questions, I’ll call him on it. And I will likely be pretty harsh about it. If that offends your sensibilities, I apologize. Just scroll past my posts.

I still find it interesting that his English skills seem to fluctuate. Maybe I’m overanalyzing, but so be it. And I still find it interesting that he refuses to respond to me. I’m still curious about that waging war comment.

Oh, and Anonymousx2, wrong again.

Anonymousx2

Posted 18 March 2008 at 05:12 am

Now I’m last.

Yes, I’m poking fun once again at the “FIRST!!!!!” posters. I realize that they are still children, but it does begin to wear on one’s nerves, doesn’t it?

I was extremely glad to see that no one posted “First” for the “The Sheep Incident.”

sid

Posted 18 March 2008 at 08:49 am

Anonymousx2 said: “Now I’m last.

Yes, I’m poking fun once again at the “FIRST!!!!!” posters. I realize that they are still children, but it does begin to wear on one’s nerves, doesn’t it?

I was extremely glad to see that no one posted “First” for the “The Sheep Incident.””

For the record (not that anyone should care), I started writing my response to “The Sheep Incident” before the first posting, and did refrain from making the statement. And, for the record (and still noting the insignificance of my position), I see no problem with posting “First” comments, or with poking fun at those who do such things.

Anonymousx2

Posted 18 March 2008 at 09:07 am

sid said: “For the record (not that anyone should care), I started writing my response to “The Sheep Incident” before the first posting, and did refrain from making the statement. And, for the record (and still noting the insignificance of my position), I see no problem with posting “First” comments, or with poking fun at those who do such things.”

Thanks, and …

You win.

Inti

Posted 18 March 2008 at 11:13 am

This is certainly becoming tiring for the other members of this wonderful website…but I can’t let it go! Just one more. George Bush, your beloved president (Sid) is a war criminal, a liar, prime responsible for the killings of tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq. Hussein was hanged for something similar, why Bush should be left untouched? He, at least, should be subject to a serious inquiry, perhaps through the International Penal Court. Power corrupts, specially the weak.

Last news, the Organization of American States condemned the invasion of Colombia into Ecuadorian territory, the only two countries stepping aside: Colombia and the U.S. All the other nations unanimously approved the motion. You don’t see much of these in the U. S. news broadcast systems. Ah! Today, other 40 or so were blown apart in Iraq. Of course this nothing has to do with the U. S. invasion, is just a thing of the Arabs.

Where do I am from Sid? You guess, I can only give you hints. I am from a free nation, full of solidarity and rebellious spirit, especially against all kinds of imperialism. We are currently trying to get rid of some annoyances of such kind.

See you around.

sid

Posted 18 March 2008 at 01:15 pm

Inti said: “This is certainly becoming tiring for the other members of this wonderful website…but I can’t let it go! Just one more. George Bush, your beloved president (Sid) is a war criminal, a liar, prime responsible for the killings of tens of thousands of civilians in Iraq. Hussein was hanged for something similar, why Bush should be left untouched? He, at least, should be subject to a serious inquiry, perhaps through the International Penal Court. Power corrupts, specially the weak.

Ah, but you are the final arbiter of all things Bush. The jury of your mind has already rendered its verdict and sentence. Fortunately, the world operates outside you brain ball, so we’ll just let history unfold. As for your “beloved” comment, I have many problems with many things the current Administration has done, so, yet again, your weak attempt at defining me falls well short of reality.

Last news, the Organization of American States condemned the invasion of Colombia into Ecuadorian territory, the only two countries stepping aside: Colombia and the U.S. All the other nations unanimously approved the motion. You don’t see much of these in the U. S. news broadcast systems.

Yes, this tempest in a teapot is quietly, and quickly, running its course. I saw one analyst comment that all sides came out OK. Ecuador defended its sovereignty, that nut-job in Venezuela got to look like the defender of the weak in the region, and Columbia killed a dangerous terrorist for the small price of an apology. Heck, if that loon, Chavez, hadn’t stuck his nose in, this thing may have resolved itself even more quickly. Speaking of Chavez, now there’s a guy destined for a world trial.

Ah! Today, other 40 or so were blown apart in Iraq. Of course this nothing has to do with the U. S. invasion, is just a thing of the Arabs.

One wonders if you do a cute little dance every time there is a catastrophic loss of life that, in your mind, emboldens your anti-American hatred?

Where do I am from Sid? You guess, I can only give you hints. I am from a free nation, full of solidarity and rebellious spirit, especially against all kinds of imperialism. We are currently trying to get rid of some annoyances of such kind.

Far be it from me to be the one who “outs” you. I have narrowed down your country to a couple possibilities, but I wouldn’t want to divulge anything you wish to hold secret. Someone in an earlier thread asked you, directly, where you call home, and you chose to ignore the question. Thus, if you want people to know your country, feel free to tell. But my guess is you prefer the safety of secrecy, as throwing stones is much easier when your glass house is in an undisclosed location.

See you around.”

Gee, I hope not. As I said before, I think you have some real rage issues, and I would hate to experience tham firsthand. Let’s leave it at, I’m sure we’ll be corresponding in the future.

BTW, I’m still waiting for answers to previous queries.

Anonymousx2

Posted 19 March 2008 at 05:41 pm

At last — Last.

Timtim

Posted 05 April 2008 at 08:42 pm

No,you’re not.

FatBird11

Posted 17 April 2008 at 07:55 am

I can’t get enough of the War for Southern Independence. This was a very Damn Interesting article!

scot4999

Posted 28 May 2008 at 01:34 pm

Jaeron said: “At that time, the argument for keeping slaves was the economy. It was stated that if slavery was abolished, the farms and southern businesses that relied on slave labor would be forced to go out of business, or raise prices to levels that Americans couldn’t handle… It was going to cripple the economy.

I find it funny that this can truly be related to the illegal immigration issue. They say that illegals are doing the jobs that Americans wouldn’t do, and for less money. They say that without illegal immigrants doing this labor, the economy would be crippled, and prices would raise to levels that Americans couldn’t handle… It would cripple the economy.

Interesting how we made it through that time, even though we abolished slavery.”

I dont think you can say that “we made it through it ” like it had no immediate or long term consequences. The South was left in ruin with most major cities like atlanta burned to the ground. The economy was crippled and only slowely came back. It took decades for it to come back and who knows what it would have been like with out the war or abolishment of slavery.

As far as imigration is concerned, we have already seen that the argument that they are “doing the job americans wont” is flawed. The most recent raid of the meat packing plant where they were makeing drugs as well was to take years to rehire legals. But since the argument is false it has only taken a couple months.

Ronald

Posted 04 June 2008 at 10:29 pm

When you say it took decades for the South’s economy to bounce back, I think you’re incorrect. The South’s economy still lags considerably behind the rest of the country.

rmstock

Posted 09 November 2008 at 10:55 pm

The “Civil” war of 1861-65 between the Confederacy and the Union should be seen as the aftermath of the previous conflict, which was how the Articles of the Confederation created on November 15, 1777 were subverted and replaced by the United states Constitution of September 17, 1787. The basic conflict was this : “a group of reformers, [1] known as “federalists”, felt that the Articles lacked the necessary provisions for a sufficiently effective government. Fundamentally, a federation was sought to replace the confederation. The key criticism by those who favored a more powerful central state (i.e. the federalists) was that the government (i.e. the Congress of the Confederation) lacked taxing authority”. It were foremost the Freemason factions who never stopped hammering on the federal “taxing authority”. Rumors go that key details of the final draft to be passed were changed in secret by Masons to have their parasite dream become a reality. The Devil is always in the details. To defuse this conflict the idea of Freeman and Freemasonry was introduced and key persons in the conflict were offered Freemason memberships. If you joined their ranks, one would become a free man and financial independent overnight. The total opposite is true of course, as leaving Freemasonry will make its most wealthy member a poor man overnight. See any movie about secret society’s, like the Skulls and Brotherhood of the Bell.

Now as to why the Confederacy lost to the Federal Union during the civil war, is basicly the same issue as when honest bible believing men are in conflict with the devil. Never bargain with the devil.

[1] “Its [the Philadelphia Convention’s] official function was to propose revisions to the Articles. But the delegates, meeting in secret, quickly decided to draft a totally new document. Of the 55 delegates, only 8 had signed the Declaration of Independence. Most of the leading radicals, including Sam Adams, Henry, Paine, Lee, and Jefferson, were absent. In contrast, 21 delegates belonged to the militarist Society of the Cincinnati. Overall, the convention was dominated by the array of nationalist interests that the prior war had brought together: land speculators, ex-army officers, public creditors, and privileged merchants.” Did the Constitution Betray the Revolution?, Jeffrey Rogers Hummel, William Marina http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1400

fluffybunny

Posted 02 September 2009 at 12:48 pm

The Confederacy lost the war when the Union captured the Mississippi River. It was just a matter of time from that point on.

Tabbycat82

Posted 05 September 2014 at 05:44 am

What an interesting subject. I had never actually heard of the Northwest Conspiracy until I was reading an article about the Knights of the Golden Sun, which I didn’t know a great deal about either. After reading this though I believe I will do a little more digging on both subjects. Thanks for the great read. Too bad they didn’t teach this kind of stuff in American History when I was in high school. I would have slept a lot less in that class if they would have.

Share This Page

Comments

Scroll to Top
⇧

HALP

Sorry to interrupt.It seems you've really digging into our curated links.We put a lot of effort into finding these gems.Please consider donating so we can keep up the effort.Would you like to know more?

Sorry to interrupt.It seems you've read at least whole articles now.Yay!This is a reader-supported project, and you can get stuff for donating.Would you like to know more?

Hello! This site is an independent project.We despise advertising so we ask for direct support from readers.If you donate you can get stuff.Would you like to know more?